And so Harvey Ayers attempts to silence the TRUTH! We are not sure what country he lives in, however here in the United States of America, TRUTH IS PARAMOUNT! FREE SPEECH IS COVERED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. The difference here is that all that has been said is true and gained from PUBL:IC documents of his sordid and foul history. #METOO

Although the case depicted below is controversial, what is not is telling the truth, exposing injustice and also protecting the women from a person in public service position that has been investigated for sexual abuse. Sarasota County Government and the Sarasota County Commissioners charged with protecting the citizens doesn't see this as a problem, UNTIL more abuse occurs and some women are damaged and destroyed by Harvey Ayers.
Harvey Ayers MUST GO PETITION"Harvey Ayers has always done what he has always done and to expect him not to be what he has always been is utter insanity."
Harevy Ayers a coward
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.[1]

Public Opinion on Hustler v. Falwell
In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of
Hustler magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not have been reasonably considered believable. Therefore, the Court held that the emotional distress inflicted on Falwell by the ad was not a sufficient reason to deny the First Amendment protection to speech that is critical of public officials and public figures.[1][2]

Falwell sued Flynt, Hustler magazine, and Flynt's distribution company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.[9] Before trial, the court granted Flynt's motion for summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, and the remaining two charges proceeded to trial. A jury found in favor of Flynt on the libel claim, stating that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [Falwell] or actual events in which [he] participated."[10] On the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the jury ruled in favor of Falwell and awarded him $150,000 in damages.[10]
Flynt appealed to the
Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Flynt's argument that the actual-malice standard of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) applied in cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiff was a public figure, as Falwell concededly was. The New York Times standard focused too heavily on the truth of the statement at issue; for the Fourth Circuit, it was enough that Virginia law required the defendant to act intentionally. After the Fourth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Flynt's request to hear the case.
Harvey Ayers Ex Cop that crosses the line copy
Opinion of the Court
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large". In New York Times, the Court held that the First Amendment gives speakers immunity from sanction with respect to their speech concerning public figures unless their speech is both false and made with "actual malice", i.e., with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. Although false statements lack inherent value, the "breathing space" that freedom of expression requires in order to flourish must tolerate occasional false statements, lest there be an intolerable chilling effect on speech that does have constitutional value.
To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of
Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.
Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the
Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.
Clearly, Falwell was a
public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.[11]
Aftermath
DramatizationEdit
Further information: The People vs. Larry Flynt
The People vs. Larry Flynt, a 1996 film directed by Miloš Forman starring Woody Harrelson as Flynt and Edward Norton as Flynt's lawyer Alan Isaacman, features the case prominently.
Flynt–Falwell relationshipEdit
After The People vs. Larry Flynt appeared, Falwell and Flynt began meeting in person to discuss philosophy. They visited colleges to publicly debate morality and the First Amendment, and exchanged Christmas cards and family photos. After Falwell's death in 2007 Flynt wrote, "the ultimate result was one I never expected ... We became friends".[12]
See also
Notes
  1. ^ a b "Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell", Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, retrieved 3 Jun 2016 
  2. Taylor, Jr., Stuart (February 25, 1988), "Court, 8-0, Extends Right to Criticize Those in Public Eye", The New York Times 
  3. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
  4. ^ a b James Castagnera; Philadelphia Inquirer (May 23, 2007). "Falwell vs. Flynt: See you in court". philly.com. 
  5. Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago–Kent College of Law, Oyez Project (September 12, 2012). "HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL". oyez.org. 
  6. Chicago Reader, January 30, 1997, Adam Langer "Too Lewd for Larry"
  7. Kang, John M. (2012), "Hustler v. Falwell: Worst Case in the History of the World, Maybe the Universe", unlv.edu, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law 
  8. Warshaw, Robert G. (March 1, 1987). "Copyright Infringement: All is Fair as Falwell Hustles Flynt". lmu.edu. Loyola Law School. 
  9. Louis Menand; The New York Review of Books (February 6, 1997). "It's a Wonderful Life". nybooks.com. 
  10. ^ a b University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. "Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell". umkc.edu. 
  11. "Hustler magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)". US Supreme Court. Find law. Retrieved 29 March 2012. 
  12. Flynt, Larry (2007-05-20). "The porn king and the preacher". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 10 January 2015. 








Harvey Ayers
CLICK THIS LINK HERE TO GO TO THE DOCUMENTS PAGE AND SEE THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS REGARDING HARVEY AYERS AND HIS SORDID PAST

Harvey Ayers

Harvey Ayers

Sarasota Code Corruption Harvey Ayers

Guy McCauley and Sarasota County Corruption

Harvey Ayers and Sarasota County Government

Sarasota Code Corruption3
HARVEY AYERS, YOUR DAYS OF WORKING IN ANY TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT INCLUDING SARASOTA COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT ARE COMING TO AN END. GO BACK TO PIZZA HUT, DESOTO COUNTY WON'T HAVE YOU, PUNTA GORDA IS ASHAMED OF YOU, AND YOU SPIT ON, KICKED AND SHIT ON THE WRONG DOGS THIS TIME. TO MAKE A GOFUND.ME DONATION, STAY TUNED. ALL FUNDS GO TO THE LEGAL EXPENSES AGAINST SARASOTA COUNTY.

Sarasota County
Code Corruption


MEG WITTMER CORRUPTION